Ongoing Contest(Scores)

[havenguy]

Couldn't you just use your normal tension members and attachment base, but instead of normal compression have a solid piece of wood (or strong material) that you know will hold the entire thing? Find a way to attach that to the tension so that the distal connection doesn't break, and you should be able to test it.

Just an idea...

[Balsa Man]

Couldn't you just use your normal tension members and attachment base, but instead of normal compression have a solid piece of wood (or strong material) that you know will hold the entire thing? Find a way to attach that to the tension so that the distal connection doesn't break, and you should be able to test it.

Just an idea...

Good thinking- that would give you a good t-member test

[Unbihexium]

Out of curiosity, am I the only one here who is getting stuck near 1400 +/- 50 efficiency or is that a place many people get stuck? I've been stuck at that efficiency since my regional 2 weeks ago and am just curious if anyone else has a similar problem...

[inthewoods]

Couldn't you just use your normal tension members and attachment base, but instead of normal compression have a solid piece of wood (or strong material) that you know will hold the entire thing? Find a way to attach that to the tension so that the distal connection doesn't break, and you should be able to test it.

Just an idea...

Great ideas and I thank you! Len, I'm from southern region and have enjoyed your expertise and detailed posts. Thank you for your enthusiasm and help for those of us who are in the woods on this one. Haven't given up yet and may have more questions after we test some more on Saturday.

[Balsa Man]

Thanks. Glad you're finding it helpful.
In a number of ways, booms are more challenging than towers and bridges.....
There's a variant on havenguy's great suggestion of isolated tension member testing by using a....bombproof dummy compression member/members; you could do it the other way around with bombproof tension members.....

More than glad to discuss more after your next testing.

Basic principles for refining/improving;
-a basically sound design
-understanding the forces/physics at work- what's going on with the forces, how buckling works; how resisting buckling works
-isolation of variables- two major elements:
-"geometric control" - a) everything lined up and symmetrical, b) done in a way that it is repeatable, so the next one is the same shape/alignment
-materials control- because the properties (strength) of wood vary w/ density, a) keeping track of weights of pieces, and b) "matching" - when you have two of something, making sure they're as similar in weight as possible.

Working with these, and adding with a safety chain the ability to "catch failure" at the initial failure mode, you can successively beef up what's failing, find what the next 'weak link" is, beef it up.
Good luck.....ah, actually though, its not a matter of luck, its a matter of good process; good science. Looking forward to hearing.

[havenguy]

1250! Could have been 1339, but I was lazy in gluing the attachment base...

Still, this is the best score we've gotten yet this year

Does anyone have a prediction about how this could do at a competitive regional competition???

[Balsa Man]

Well (how that score will/would do).

Nicely done

[UQOnyx]

Wow! Congratulations! I don't know about Pennsylvania, but here in Jersey, for division B, even in states, you would probably get a first place! Even for division C, that is a very respectable score

[havenguy]

Thanks!

Also, thank you to everyone on the forum...we definitely would not have been able to get higher than 750 without all of the help we received.

Anyway, it looks like there are some pretty good scores in New Jersey (for at least 2 teams ) :

Our score was 902! YAY!

Out of curiosity, am I the only one here who is getting stuck near 1400 +/- 50 efficiency or is that a place many people get stuck? I've been stuck at that efficiency since my regional 2 weeks ago and am just curious if anyone else has a similar problem...

@Unbihexium: I don't think very many teams have gotten up there yet, so great job!

[UQOnyx]

Thanks!

Also, thank you to everyone on the forum...we definitely would not have been able to get higher than 750 without all of the help we received.

Anyway, it looks like there are some pretty good scores in New Jersey (for at least 2 teams ) :

Our score was 902! YAY!

Out of curiosity, am I the only one here who is getting stuck near 1400 +/- 50 efficiency or is that a place many people get stuck? I've been stuck at that efficiency since my regional 2 weeks ago and am just curious if anyone else has a similar problem...

@Unbihexium: I don't think very many teams have gotten up there yet, so great job!

Hey, you would be surprised. We were 2nd or 1st place in our regionals (Don't ask why I mean 2nd or first, it is a very looooong complicated story) and our score was only 750. the score below us for 2nd/3rd was 500...

But still, we do have some national winning teams in NJ, so who knows what to expect at states ,
Oh and also some time in January you said that you had a score of 400 and were steadily increasing. Looks like you were right!